SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Search This Blog

01527--Write a note on the eight fallacies.

If we rely on experiences as evidence for our inferences and explanations,
we must screen the ways in which we handle those that offer themselves so as to
avoid making unwarranted presumptions about them and to avoid exploiting their
ambiguity in various tempting ways. Otherwise, we may be guilty of fallacies of
presumption and ambiguity in a variety of ways.
Examining them will help us avoid egregious errors in our thinking.
Although thinking that commits such fallacies is common, it is always
misleading.

I

If we rely on experiences (or anything else for that matter) as evidence
for our inferences and explanations, we must screen the ways in which we handle
them in order to avoid making unwarranted presumptions about them and
equivocating over what they mean.

A. These cautions are also prerequisites for useful inference drawing.

B. When we presume, in one way or another, facts that are not in evidence,
and when we play fast and loose with the meanings of our locutions, we are
(once again) “not even in the ballpark, much less in the game.”

II

Here are descriptions and examples of eight forms that such bad reasoning
can take.

A. Petitio principii

This fallacy amounts to inferring a conclusion from premises that are, in
fact, indistinguishable from the conclusion itself. This fallacy is also called
circular reasoning and question begging.
Example: I know that God exists because the Bible says so. And I know
that everything in the Bible is true because it is God’s word and God wouldn’t
lie.

B. Complex question

This fallacy amounts to presuming without evidence that a certain state of
affairs obtains, then shaping one’s inquiry in terms of that presumption. Example: The classic is “Have you stopped
beating your wife?” but it is equally clear in “Don’t you want to be a good boy
and go to bed?”

C. Equivocation

This amounts to exploiting
ambiguities of words. Some are simple plays on an everyday noun or adjective.
Some exploit the subtleties of dispositional and episodic participles. Examples: When mother asks, “Were you good
at the party, Susie?” Susie responds, “Well, Miles said I was.” When father
asks, “Are you smoking [these days], Fred?” Fred responds, “No I’m not [right
this moment].”

D. Amphibole

This fallacy amounts to exploiting
ambiguities of syntax. Example: A subway
rider explains why he lit a cigar right next to the sign that said “No Smoking
Allowed” by noting the two ways that sign can be read: “Smoking is forbidden”
and “Refraining from smoking is permitted.”

E. Accent

This fallacy amounts to exploiting
ambiguities of emphasis, including selective data use. Example: Story positioning in the media,
headline writing, and small print on a box of Broccoli Rice Surprise show just
what accent can do.

F. Category mistake

This fallacy amounts to exploiting
ambiguities of classification. The term comes from Gilbert Ryle’s The Concept
of Mind. Example: Not seeing the forest
for all the trees, the parade for all the marchers, and the university for all
the buildings and greens are all examples of confusing things and systems. “If
we have minds, then where are they?” is a more telling case in point.

G. Composition and division

These fallacies amount to exploiting ambiguities between the properties of
individuals and the properties of the sets that they compose. Example: “Everyone in my gymnastics class is
tiny. There’s no one there over 80 pounds. I can’t see why the instructor is
complaining that the class is too big.”

H. False dilemma

This fallacy amounts to exploiting
ambiguities of complementarity. Example:
“Well, Ali was certainly no hero, so he must have been a coward.”